Sense and Nonsense

Government Spending Falls Under Obama

The right-wing claim that government spending under President Obama is "out of control" is, of course, sheer nonsense. Now, we have Forbes magazine and the Wall Street Journal, two bastions of conservative journalism, confirming that, in fact, spending by the federal government is growing at a slower rate than at any time in 60 years -- since Eisenhower!  Two compelling charts:

 

Republican Nonsense

© Tom Toles

Iron Knee elaborates:

Republicans, who voted against every single bill that Obama came up with to help jumpstart the economy, spent their debate last night attacking Obama for not doing enough about the economy. But their only answer is lower taxes, which ignores the fact that one third of the cost of Obama’s stimulus bill (which they opposed and now attack) was to lower taxes, and the fact that taxes right now are the lowest they have been in 60 years, yet the economy continues to go into the toilet. Oh, they also want decreased regulation, even though it was decreased regulation of banks that triggered the economic collapse in the first place. They also complained about the deficit, even though Republicans have done far more to run up the deficit than Democrats.

Why does anyone listen to them when they trot out their old, tired answers that clearly have not worked? I would love it for some Republican to suggest something new, but they all seem to be part of the Borg collective. As First Read puts it:

The other big loser of the night was a serious, substantive discussion on the economy. After spending the last few weeks criticizing the Obama administration on this subject, not a single GOP presidential candidate offered a convincing plan on how to create jobs. We heard plenty about lower taxes and less regulation. The problem: Taxes are already at their lowest level since the 1950, and that hasn’t really jump-started the economy. Moreover, there was little regulation during the Bush administration, and that didn’t produce a wave of jobs between 2001 and 2009.

Spending Cuts vs. Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

from the Center for American Progress:

Pushing Back at the Greedfest

You have to be comatose to be unaware of the grotesque income inequality that prevails in contemporary America. Take a look at the disturbing data (here and here), documenting  the extent of the inequality and the rate of change over time. 

This insanity was brought home powerfully to those of us in the Boston area this week when Wednesday's Boston Globe carried a front-page article detailing the $8.6 million in compensation that Blue Cross / Blue Shield of Massachusetts paid in 2010 to Cleve Killingsworth, the chief executive officer of the non-profit organization who resigned abruptly in the Spring of 2010 at the urging of the board.  This was after BC/BS posted back-to-back operating losses in 2009 and 2010 totaling $215 million. 

What is wrong with this country?  What is wrong with Blue Cross?  Are we really supposed to believe that it takes compensation at that level to find a competent executive to lead this organization?  That's absurd.  

Wealth and Inequality in the U.S.

Moreover, the gap between the top 1% and everyone else hasn't been this bad since the Roaring Twenties.

Go to this article in Business Insider, containing this and fourteen other graphs about the dramatically worsening wealth gap in America.

(h/t Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars)

The Onion offers a visual take at the situation.

Volcker Over Summers and Geithner

Is it just an eclipse or a more enduring realignment of celestial objects?  Hard to know, but I took heart from the news late last week that President Obama had finally paid more heed to former Fed chair Paul Volcker's advice than to that of the Two Wall-Street Toadies, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner.  Shoving aside Summers and Geithner, who from the get-go have been overly protective of the big banks, Obama agreed to follow Volcker's advice to limit the size of the biggest banks, curtail their risk-taking activities, and prohibit commercial banks from proprietary trading of financial securities.  It's about time. 

Whether it was Scott Brown's victory on Tuesday or some other set of prods, Obama finally moved off the dime on this measure that's been under consideration for a while and threw his weight in with Volcker, Vice-President Biden, David Axelrod, and others who had long been pushing for tougher crackdowns on the banks.  This is very good.  I would have liked to see more here, such as tight limits on compensation.  But when it comes to taking on the big banks, possibly the worst entities in our sordid economy, Obama will never be populist enough for me.

And a delightful little sidelight of this story is that Larry Summers has finally had his arrogant sails trimmed again. (When I say "again," I'm thinking of Harvard having fired his smug, imperious ass.)  In the future, let's see a lot more of Christina Romer, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, and a lot less of Summers. 

(One of the problems with being too busy at times to blog is that the big news stories just keep piling up and one keeps falling behind more.  I've decided that mini-reactions are better than none.)

Overpaid College Presidents

Today's newspapers are reporting that 23 private college presidents made more than $1 million in 2008. Take a look at this article from today's New York Times. 

This is truly outrageous that many of these university presidents are being paid close to $1.5 million a year. Can anyone seriously say that the president of Suffolk University in Boston needs to be paid that much?  Or that Neil Kerwin (an old acquaintance of mine, now president of American University in Washington, D.C.) deserves to earn almost $1.5 million a year?  Nonsense.  The argument that these universities have to pay these salaries to be competitive for "top talent" is ridiculous.  The managerial revolution in higher education has produced bloated university bureaucracies with excessive salaries paid to far too many mediocre administrators.  

At some point soon, parents are going to stop ponying up the $50,000 per year demanded of private colleges and universities in this country.  And the first people to take a hit from the changing economics should be the overpaid administrators.  I can't wait!  Along with the greedy bankers, these people should be drawn and quartered.   

Problem Solved

U.S. Government Stages Fake Coup To Wipe Out National Debt

Sick Society

Take a look at this graph:  

Via Prosebeforehos.com:  

The image represents how much cash separates the top 1% from the bottom 99% of the population in the United States. It gets worse:

    During eight years of the Bush administration, the 400 richest Americans, who now own more than the bottom 150 million Americans, increased their net worth by $700 billion. In 2005, the top 1 percent claimed 22 percent of the national income, while the top 10 percent took half of the total income, the largest share since 1928….

    The highest incomes come from executive pay at top corporations. In 2007, the ratio of CEO pay to the average paycheck was 344 to 1, lower than the record 525 to 1 ratio set in 2001, but substantial.

This gross inequality is perpetuated and exacerbated by the shameful compensation practices of the big corporations and banks.   Get a load of this item from Political Irony, which says that Morgan Stanley, despite just posting its third quarterly loss, has set aside 72% of net revenues for bonuses.   Good lord. What a sick society.

Cool Map

From Strange Maps, via Cool Blogs.